This website contains controversial information that may be disturbing to some viewers. The theories, conclusions and commentaries are presented in an attempt to reveal the hidden truths. It is up to the viewer to determine what they choose to believe after evaluating all available sources of information.

http://drinkingwaterlosangeles.comServing the greater Los Angeles area, Los Angeles Drinking Water is proud to offer Reverse Osmosis filtration systems that remove trace elements such as arsenic, mercury, lead and fluoride which are known to be in Los Angeles tap water according to the 2013 DWP Water Quality report.

It appears unlikely that a Boeing 757, piloted by an Arab hijacker, crashed into the Pentagon on September 11

by Enver Masud Founder and CEO The Wisdom Fund - www.twf.org

Â Â Â Â It appears unlikely that a Boeing 757, piloted by Hani Hanjour - the alleged Arab hijacker, crashed into the Pentagon on September 11. Photos and videos held by the U.S. government could very well refute this conclusion - I would welcome that because the alternative is much more disturbing.

Â Â Â Â The Pentagon crash may be the only commercial airline crash in modern history for which photographs of the wreckage have not been shown to the public. Five video frames from Pentagon cameras raise more questions than they answer - no Boeing 757 is visible.

Â Â Â Â I'm an engineering management consultant, and live less than a mile from the Pentagon. The first question that I asked other onlookers as we viewed the crash site was: "Where's the plane?"

Â Â Â Â In the photos publicly available, the hole in the Pentagon wall - prior to the collapse of the roof - appears much too small to accomodate a Boeing 757. If only the fusealge penetrated the Pentagon, then the wings would have remained outside. But no large debris - anything resembling the wings and Boeing 757 engines - is visible on the Pentagon lawn, and the lawn itself shows no sign that a Boeing 757 skidded across it or struck it. Indeed early reports claimed that a truck bomb had exploded, and that the damage was similar to that inflicted on the USS Cole in Yemen.

Â Â Â Â Also, how does one reconcile the relatively minor damage to the Pentagon by a Boeing 757 (the Pentagon's reinforced conrete walls are 18 inches thick), with the total destruction of the World Trade Center by two Boeing 767s (each tower was built with 236 exterior columns, and 47 core columns - all made of steel and connected to each other by steel trusses)? By suspending the laws of science in either one or both locations?

Â Â Â Â Eyewitness accounts offer conflicting testimony, and they are a poor substitute for scientific investigation - physical evidence must take precedence over eyewitness accounts. One eyewitness account, however, takes precedence over those of passersby.

Â Â Â Â Arlington County Fire Chief Ed Plaugher - at a Dept. of Defense News Briefing with Assistant Secretary Victoria Clarke on September 12, 2001 - when asked: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?" said: "there are some small pieces of aircraft ... there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing."

Â Â Â Â Didn't Chief Plaugher see the plane's engines? The engines would have survived the impact and heat. An engine from a plane that struck the World Trade Center was shown on network television, and so was an engine from American Airlines Flight 587 which crashed shortly after takeoff from New York on November 12, 2001. Photos from the Pentagon crash site show what looks like an engine rotor about 30 inches in diameter - a Boeing 757's engines are about nine feet in diameter.

Â Â Â Â Another question put to Chief Plaugher at the briefing was: "Chief, there are small pieces of the plane virtually all over, out over the highway, tiny pieces. Would you say the plane exploded, virtually exploded on impact due to the fuel..." Plaugher responded: "I'd rather not comment on that."

Â Â Â Â How did "small pieces of the plane" end up "out over the highway" when the plane is reported to have disintegrated inside the Pentagon after it crossed the highway? If it disintegrated outside the Pentagon why is there nothing that looks like a Boeing 757 on the Pentagon lawn?

Â Â Â Â It is curious that at this News Briefing, held approximately 24 hours after American Airlines Flight 77 departing from Dulles airport is said to have crashed into the Pentagon, the words "Boeing," "Dulles," "flight," and "passengers" were not even mentioned. The word "plane" was mentioned once, but Chief Plaugher would "not comment on that."

Â Â Â Â It is even more curious that national news media failed to follow up on Chief Plaugher's comment that "there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing" when dozens of onlookers, relatives, and firefighters were interviewed on network television about the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center.

Â Â Â Â Photos and videos of the Pentagon reveal yet more curious sights: one shows 8 or 10 men in office clothes carrying a large box covered with a blue tarpaulin while firefighters look on; another shows about "50 FBI officers" walking shoulder to shoulder in line apparently looking for small items; yet another shows office furniture and a computer monitor which survived the fire that is alleged to have vaporized the Boeing 757 (highly improbable, if not impossible).

Â Â Â Â As for the 19 alleged hijackers, their names do not appear on Associated Press' September 17, 2001 "partial list of victims" on the hijacked flights - the final list has not been made public. On September 23, 2001 the BBC revealed that four of the hijack "suspects" were alive. The BBC added: " FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged on Thursday that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt."

Â Â Â Â The conspiracy theory set forth in "The 9/11 Commission Report" offers no explanation for the hijacker's identities, and it contradicts publicly available evidence regarding the Pentagon crash site.

Â Â Â Â The issue of whether or not a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon could be settled by examining the photos and videos taken between 9:35 a.m. and 10:15 a.m. on September 11, 2001 by cameras located inside and outside the Pentagon, the cameras at the nearby gas station and the Sheraton, and the Dept. of Transportation cameras. These have not been made public.

Â Â Â Â And we would still require an explanation for the "complex maneuver" made by the alleged, Arab pilot of the Boeing 757 - Hani Hanjour. It was reported by the New Times on May 4, 2002 that "He could not fly at all."

Â Â Â Â CBS News reported: "Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes. The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed. The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute later it clipped the tops of street lights and plowed into the Pentagon at 460 mph."

Â Â Â Â Since September 11, 2001, about 5,000 foreign nationals have been detained by the United States and denied basic constitutional rights in the name of "wartime" expediency even though Director Mueller said in a speech at the Commonwealth Club on April 19, 2002: "In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper - either here in the United States, or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere - that mentioned any aspect of the September 11 plot."

Â Â Â Â On March 4, 2004, a German court "overturned the world's only conviction" in connection with the September 11 attack on America "because the U.S. withheld crucial evidence."

Â Â Â Â For a detailed analysis of deficiences in "The 9/11 Commission Report," I recommend highly David Ray Griffin's "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions."

Â Â Â Â Lastly, the burden of proof is on those who claim that a Boeing 757, flown by Hani Hanjour, crashed into the Pentagon - it is not necessary for those who question that claim to disprove it.

I thought the above article gave much food for thought and soon I shall add to this thread my presentation of:"What really hit the Pentagon that day?"

But we really could clear it up quickly if we were able to view the video tapes from the security cameras of the local businesses located around the Pentagon that had a clear view of what hit the Pentagon and which were all confiscated by the FBI later that day on 9/11.

Currently, all we have are 5 doctored???, spaced out, selected frames from the Pentagons security camera.

--------------------

QUOTE

"Ye shall know them by their fruits"~ Matthew 7:16

"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."~ Buddha

From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.

The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.

Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happenm immediately. It wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.

Saw a doco the other night on ATN7 Sydney,(didn't catch the name of it) it was the full spin doctored job, fancy graphics etc.

Totally glossed over the missing frames from the surveillance tape. Didn't mention the confiscated tapes from the gas station and the Sheraton. Mostly it focused on the wonderful construction of the Pentagon & interviews with staff about their lucky escape from the abandoned wing.

Also claimed that the wings of the 757 did shear off on impact, but were buried under the rubble....anyone seen photos of this ?

I'm assuming this doco is on full rotation in the States

There's two scary aspects to this, if 9/11 was a total snow job

All the personnel involved in the cleanup and body retrieval must know what's going on here, and if so, then it involves fairly mind-boggling 'debriefing'

If all the planes involved in 9/11 were substituted, then what happened to the original planes...and more importantly, the passengers ?

It's shows a piece of the landing gear that I hadn't seen on any other picture. Could it be that in order to debunk the story a picture is used that was taken from somewhere else?Other than that the starter of that thread has quite a convincing story to tell, showing damage near the windows where the wings would have impacted, which I cannot explain otherwise.

Some people scoff at those of us who do not buy into the govts tale that a large airliner crashed into the Pentagon that was piloted by unskilled Arabs.

I look at the evidence of the impact and to me, it appears to be caused by a missile or smaller object which was able to pierce through several reinforced concrete walls.

How convenient that the area that was hit in the Pentagon was holding records regarding the 2.3 to 2.6 TRILLION missing dollars from the Pentagon budget which was 'coincidently' announced by Donald "Aspartame" Rumsfeld on Sept 10th 2001.

I smell a rat... in fact I smell a whole rats nest!

QUOTE

Scholars for 9/11 Truth - A Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon by Michael Meyer, Mechanical Engineer

QUOTE

To the members of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven:

I would like to give you my input as to the events on September 11, and why it is a physically provable fact that some of the damage done to the Pentagon could not have occurred from a Boeing 757 impact, and therefore the 9/11 Commission report is not complete and arguably a cover-up. I will not speculate about what may have been covered up, I will only speak from my professional opinion. But I will explain why I do not believe the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757.

I am a Mechanical Engineer who spent many years in Aerospace, including structural design, and in the design, and use of shaped charge explosives (like those that would be used in missile warheads).

The structural design of a large aircraft like a 757 is based around managing the structural loads of a pressurized vessel, the cabin, to near-atmospheric conditions while at the lower pressure region of cruising altitudes, and to handle the structural and aerodynamic loads of the wings, control surfaces, and the fuel load. It is made as light as possible, and is certainly not made to handle impact loads of any kind.

If a 757 were to strike a reinforced concrete wall, the energy from the speed and weight of the aircraft will be transferred, in part into the wall, and to the structural failure of the aircraft. It is not too far of an analogy as if you had an empty aluminum can, traveling at high speed hitting a reinforced concrete wall. The aluminum can would crumple (the proper engineering term is buckle) and, depending on the structural integrity of the wall, crack, crumble or fail completely.

The wall failure would not be a neat little hole, as the energy of the impact would be spread throughout the wall by the reinforcing steel.

This is difficult to model accurately, as any high speed, high energy, impact of a complex structure like an aircraft, into a discontinuous wall with windows etc. is difficult. What is known is that nearly all of the energy from this event would be dissipated in the initial impact, and subsequent buckling of the aircraft.

We are lead to believe that not only did the 757 penetrate the outer wall, but continued on to penetrate separate internal walls totaling 9 feet of reinforced concrete. The final breach of concrete was a nearly perfectly cut circular hole (see below) in a reinforced concrete wall, with no subsequent damage to the rest of the wall. (If we are to believe that somehow this aluminum aircraft did in fact reach this sixth final wall.)

EXIT HOLE IN PENTAGON RING-C

American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, is alleged to have punched through 6 blast-resistant concrete walls ‹a total of nine feet of reinforced concrete‹ before exiting through this hole.

It is physically impossible for the wall to have failed in a neat clean cut circle, period. When I first saw this hole, a chill went down my spine because I knew it was not possible to have a reinforced concrete wall fail in this manner, it should have caved in, in some fashion.

IMAGES ADDED By PuPP

How do you create a nice clean hole in a reinforced concrete wall? With an explosive shaped charge. An explosive shaped charge, or cutting charge is used in various military warhead devices. You design the geometry of the explosive charge so that you create a focused line of energy. You essentially focus nearly all of the explosive energy in what is referred to as a jet. You use this jet to cut and penetrate armor on a tank, or the walls of a bunker. The signature is clear and unmistakable. In a missile, the explosive charge is circular to allow the payload behind the initial shaped charge to enter whatever has been penetrated.

I do not know what happened on 9/11, I do not know how politics works in this country, I can not explain why the mainstream media does not report on the problems with the 9/11 Commission. But I am an engineer, and I know what happens in high speed impacts, and how shaped charges are used to "cut" through materials.

I have not addressed several other major gaps in the Pentagon/757 incident. The fact that this aircraft somehow ripped several light towers clean out of the ground without any damage to the aircraft (which I also feel is impossible), the fact that the two main engines were never recovered from the wreckage, and the fact that our government has direct video coverage of the flight path, and impact, from at least a gas station (Citgo) and hotel, which they have refused to release.

You can call me a "tin hat", crazy, conspiracy theory, etc, but I can say from my expertise that the damage at the Pentagon was not caused by a Boeing 757.

The three frames from the last item of the previous post have been shown on Oz TV with the blurb that the images have been released by the PTB to debunk conspiracy theorists.

A white blur to the right of one of the frames is such that no one can postively identify it as an airliner or that it is not an airliner. From an evidenciary point-of-view nothing has changed.

What has changed is that the spin-doctors have released "evidence" which the mindless majority will not question or even watch a second time. Simply because the MM have been told, "this proves that it was a passenger craft", by a government spokeperson, they will believe.

The PTB have so much control that they can resort to this obvious vacuous ploy and get away with it.

I waited with anticipation for the NEW news release of more video images of what hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

I almost laughed, but wanted to cry as we were shown images on our tv screens that were grainier and blurrier than the original 5 frames released on the internet almost 5 years ago.(as shown in my original post above)

Why not just show us some CLEAR IMAGES from the other locations -- like the Citco gas station located across the street from the Pentagon who, along with many other businesses, had their security camera surveilance videos confisgated by the criminal organization known as the FBI, immediately after 9/11 and were never shown to the public.

Grainy video stills showing what is claimed to be the nose cone of Flight 77 will only result in an increased circus of debate around the issue of what happened at the Pentagon in preparation for a future release of clear video footage that 'debunks' people who question the official version of 9/11.

For over four years we have remained neutral on the subject, agreeing that unanswered questions need to be explored but warning against the Pentagon issue becoming the core focus of the 9/11 truth movement.

The danger is clearly that the government will use its media mouthpieces in particular Fox News to hype this until it becomes the de facto keystone of alternative explanations behind 9/11.

At the point when that crescendo reaches its peak crystal clear footage of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon will be released, knocking down the straw man argument that the establishment itself erected.

The government is steam valving this issue so as to garner as much interest as possible before blowing the entire matter out of the water. We know for a fact that the FBI seized the gas station camera footage and footage from hotels across the highway which would show the entire sequence of events and prove exactly what happened at the Pentagon.

The fact that they have again chosen to release grainy and foggy images which only lead to more speculation tell us two things.

1) The government truly is frightened to death of releasing any images which accurately depict what happened at the Pentagon because it doesn't jive with the official version of 9/11.

2) Or the government knows that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and has clear footage of the incident, but is deliberately releasing these speculative images in order to stoke the debate so it can later release the high quality video and use it to debunk the entire 9/11 truth movement.

The media obsession with this one facet of an entire smorgasbord of 9/11 questions, and their refusal to address more hardcore 9/11 evidence, leads us to fear the latter explanation is the case.

Why no discussion of Building 7 and the comments of Larry Silverstein?

Why no discussion of the hijackers being trained by the US government? Lt. Colonel Steve Butler of the Monterey Defense Language Institute was suspended from duty after he accused Bush of allowing 9/11 to happen.

Why no discussion of the NORAD stand down?

Because none of these issues are honey pots, none of them are speculation because the cards are laid out on the table for everyone to see and the evidence is clear.

While intelligent questions need to be asked about what really happened at the Pentagon we feel that research in this context should come with the proviso that a potential trap is being laid to discredit all 9/11 research at a later date, and that today's story is part of that process.

After the Oklahoma bombing, the police spent six days investigating and could find nothing to implicate McVeigh. Along comes the FBI which confiscates the same documents investigated by the police and lo! a paper trail leading to McVeigh appears seven days later. After four years, how much trust can be placed in ANY evidence released by the PTB? Four years is long enough to take any footage and doctor it up enough to prove that the Pentagon was actually attacked by Godzilla, the underpants Gnomes or anything they fancy.

Fuel does not explode but rather burns catastrophically. Compare the way the flames occurred on the towers and the pentagon. The towers were struck by aircraft (indisputable) which penetrated the structure before the flames appeared. The pentagon was struck by something which exploded at the moment of impact. Whatever hit the pentagon was tipped with high speed explosives.